Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Here's the latest stupidity from Ken Ham - trying to have a bit of a laugh at this article:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 124327.htmhttps://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... ng-cities/"And after reading the article, we find that the thought experiment is really all about the author’s views of climate change!"Ham deliberately ignores what the Science Daily article says - "The researchers note that the emission of fossil fuels into the atmosphere has already changed the carbon cycle in a way that is recorded in carbon isotope records."

What Ken Ham calls 'answers' is simple bigotry. And this anti-science stance by the bigot makes a mockery that he is 'only' opposed to the findings of 'historical' science. This is 'observational'. And measurable.

And maybe the dangerous bigot would care to google 'Thwaites Glacier'? But if he did he would doubtless find a justification for saying "there's nothing to worry about from global warming and melting glaciers, and we don't need the Paris Agreement - because despite human sin and natural processes, God is still in control of the 'perfect atmosphere' he created - just as I told everybody back in 2015https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... alarmists/".

I'm not attacking the Bible. I'm attacking Ken Ham for lies that have little or nothing to do with the Bible despite all his endless claims that what he continues push year on year is things "every Christian needs to know about climate change".

PSAnd Ham's unscientific stance on global warming - he's basically saying the Bible tells us all we need to know regarding Earth's climate in 2018 (which is false) - proves that he was either lying or delusional when he wrote THIS:https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -textbook/It is clear that when it comes to RECENT and CURRENT climate change/global warming Ham DOES think the Bible is a science textbook (rather than merely a 'textbook of historical science'). It 'tells' Ham that global warming is 'not' anthropogenic but caused by God and/or natural processes - and that it requires little or no action to combat it and is nothing to worry about because, as he stated in his 2015 article, "humanity won’t be snuffed out by climate change" - so that's alright then, a few people might survive.

PPSAnd there are even MORE lies ie DELIBERATE MISDIRECTION here (see what he claims about carbon dioxide):https://answersingenesis.org/media/audi ... te-change/ "And, while carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is not really a significant one". (He tries to justify the lie by comparing carbon dioxide with water vapour.) If you're going to be a career liar you might as well make your lies big ones. (As much as 20 per cent of the greenhouse effect on Earth may be due to carbon dioxide and the gas persists in the atmosphere for many decades.)

A description of this article - but you have to pay to subscribe to read any Answers Magazine article whereas 'browsing' from another link in the Ham blog only provides very limited information about what's in the magazine's latest edition - informs the reader that: "All our lives we’ve heard that caves form slowly, over tens of thousands of years, as surface water seeps into the earth. But recent discoveries are turning old assumptions upside down. The real story is much more interesting and consistent with the Bible":https://answersingenesis.org/answers/magazine/

And this is his bio: https://answersingenesis.org/bios/mike-matthews/"Mike Matthews earned a BA in English and an MEd in English education from Bob Jones University. Mike was content manager for the Creation Museum and now is the editor in chief of Answers magazine."

I've got a BA in French and German Studies from the University of Lancaster, England. And I once visited the nearby White Scar Caves. Maybe that qualifies me to write an article reporting 'discoveries' that turn upside down all trained scientists ever thought they knew about cave formation - and, into the bargain, find out what exactly the Bible teaches us about cave formation and then ensure that my discovery matches with that Bible teaching?

Apparently AiG are still having difficulty filling all the job posts they've created (they didn't evolve) in Kentucky. Perhaps they should stop advertising for information officers? That didn't work out to well for the (Russian) Kremlin either. Talking of the Kremlin, a new auditorium is on the way - where people will be taught what really happened: https://twitter.com/aigkenham/status/958669086711537664

Ham lied TWICE on 10 May. Not only are the dating methods reliable, but there is abundant genetic and morphological evidence that WE are a separate species FROM Neanderthals (who went extinct while our species survived). We are related - there is evidence of inter-breeding (normally YECs would say we and Neanderthals were members of the same 'kind' - except when that invention becomes more grossly unbiblical than when they normally employ it to 'defend' Genesis and/or 'refute' science).

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/mudrocks-minutes/?utm_source=facebook-aig&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebook-aig''What do you know? Science again caught up with the Bible.''

Now the hypocrite Bob Sorensen is talking of 'critical thinking' whilst throwing mudrocks ie accusing me of 'rancorous tactics' in this thread after I showed another YEC misusing the Bible for a personal anti-science agenda (rather like Bob does at times):http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2018/06 ... ution.html

Sorensen has no interest in critical thinking with anybody who disagrees with him (including other Christians). His internet behaviour - eg blocking emails and banning critics - is testament to that reality. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/mudrocks-minutes/?utm_source=facebook-aig&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebook-aig''What do you know? Science again caught up with the Bible.''

Now the hypocrite Bob Sorensen is talking of 'critical thinking' whilst throwing mudrocks ie accusing me of 'rancorous tactics' in this thread after I showed another YEC misusing the Bible for a personal anti-science agenda (rather like Bob does at times):http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2018/06 ... ution.html

Sorensen has no interest in critical thinking with anybody who disagrees with him (including other Christians). His internet behaviour - eg blocking emails and banning critics - is testament to that reality. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts is inefficient in his 'ego surfing' as Cowboy Bob Sorensen appropriately. If Cowboy Bob Sorensen was seeking attention it would be from important people and not Ashley Haworth-Roberts. There are other places where the rancorous tactics and unintelligent ravings of Ashley Haworth-Roberts have been noted. Here is one that is on Facebook but not on a site used by Cowboy Bob Sorensen. https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Super ... 9329037266

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/mudrocks-minutes/?utm_source=facebook-aig&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebook-aig''What do you know? Science again caught up with the Bible.''

Now the hypocrite Bob Sorensen is talking of 'critical thinking' whilst throwing mudrocks ie accusing me of 'rancorous tactics' in this thread after I showed another YEC misusing the Bible for a personal anti-science agenda (rather like Bob does at times):http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2018/06 ... ution.html

Sorensen has no interest in critical thinking with anybody who disagrees with him (including other Christians). His internet behaviour - eg blocking emails and banning critics - is testament to that reality. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts is inefficient in his 'ego surfing' as Cowboy Bob Sorensen appropriately. If Cowboy Bob Sorensen was seeking attention it would be from important people and not Ashley Haworth-Roberts. There are other places where the rancorous tactics and unintelligent ravings of Ashley Haworth-Roberts have been noted. Here is one that is on Facebook but not on a site used by Cowboy Bob Sorensen. https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Super ... 9329037266

I call out wilful deliberate anti-science liars (their leader claims to 'love' science) for what they are. It seems that perturbs Mister Gordons - a follower of a Facebook page where there is NO free speech and where factual rebuttals are routinely labelled by its proprietor as 'unintelligent' or 'illogical' ravings - despite the fact that I am merely echoing the international scientific consensus that humans are the cause of the climate change in the past century that we continue to experience (something which is not even contrary to the Bible yet the bigots like Ken Ham and co, Sorensen and Gordons - not to mention their leader in the White House - get mightily exercised about).

The survey (I've not read the news in great detail) might be something of a puzzle to evolutionists but postulating young earth creationism (or indeed Genesis alone) does not resolve the issue. 99% of animals that have ever lived are believed to be extinct (and most of them before humans were around). Thus an awful lot of species (including many plants too) appeared much more than c200,000 years ago - but many of them (not all) are no longer with us. (Something Ken Ham cannot explain.)

Ham also flags this - but surprise surprise it's a Christian news outlet:https://www.onenewsnow.com/science-tech ... -in-darwinThe article has that would be replacement for Darwin(ism), Nathaniel Jeanson who is currently in the UK giving talks, attacking a strawman version of evolution (a robin not turning into a lizard).

I also note that the first article linked to by Ham mentions the finding that ''species have very clear genetic boundaries'' (successful hybridisation may be rare but AiG often mention it) and states that this was 'unexpected'. However the article does not say the same as Ham says - ''one of the researchers said, “The conclusion is very surprising . . . and I fought against it as hard as I could.” Evolution doesn’t expect the vast majority of our species to have arrived at the same time, nor does it expect species to have these clear genetic boundaries''. The article [CORRECTION on 25 June I in fact quoted from THIS article: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-surv ... ution.html] actually says: ''The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.''

Ham also claims: ''But this is what we’d expect in a biblical worldview ...''. That expectation being the ''vast majority of our species [those alive today] to have arrived at the same time'' and ''species to have clear genetic boundaries''.

Which is rather funny since I thought the AiG 'biblical' worldview was God originally creating 'kinds' at the family or genus level. NOT God creating species that have or had (eg with dinosaurs which are extinct) very clear genetic boundaries. (I searched on the AiG website for the phrase 'very clear genetic boundaries' - this was the result: https://answersingenesis.org/search/?re ... boundaries) Which is why the best Ham can now come up with is: ''And we also expect groups to be genetically distinct. God created each kind to reproduce according to its kind (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25).'' Ham apparently cannot cite any previous AiG 'research' confirming this latest scientific understanding of genetics. Of course the Bible NEVER mentions genetics - so Ham feels free to make stuff up as he goes along (including that the Bible now 'says' God created genetically distinct species and not genetically distinct 'kinds' - OOPS. (AiG previously have claimed that species - with those very clear genetic boundaries apparently - only appeared after the Genesis Flood (when the surviving 'kinds' biblically multiplied and unbiblically formed new 'species' in place of 'kinds').)

The research was published weeks ago and appears to have attracted little attention in the (biased liberal) media though one biased liberal UK (online) newspaper carried the story (I'm having trouble accessing the original paper):https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 62336.html

This article by a fundamentalist who appears to know nothing about science (I suspect Ham read it before penning his blog post) is even worse than the Ken Ham one:http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/180601 "Science confirms Genesis AGAIN.' Garbage. (And this doesn't confirm young earth creationism either.)Fischer claims that this overturns evolution! And he is either ignorant or deliberately lying in failing to mention all the creatures that are EXTINCT and were not part of the survey.

There may be reasons to trust the Bible but Fischer's article is not one of them.

This is fundamentalist Christian religion reacting to a new scientific understanding. But is the science is causing that Ken Ham YEC 'biblical' worldview to evolve (nay it's just adaptation)? (I also note the silence from AiG regarding not only the vast number of extinct animals not included in this survey but also specific species like the neanderthals - which although extinct WERE contemporaneous with our species and even bred with some of them.)

Fischer tried to make this falsify evolution. Ham tries to make it confirm a 6,000 year old Earth. Fundamentalist Christians are certainly inventive.

Will honest Christians also react to this research I wonder.

PS A young earth creationist who is more honest than Ken Ham and Bryan Fischer (and more knowledgeable) made this response:http://blog.drwile.com/study-demonstrat ... same-time/He's unsure about some of the conclusions reached but even if they are valid they do not validate what Ken Ham believes. Period. All they do is suggest that many (non extinct) species are not only contemporaneous with Homo sapiens but might have arisen - like us - around 200,000 years ago. Ham conveniently ignores all the many extinct animals - along with plants both extant and extinct.

PPS And then Ham flagged his cherry picking on his Facebook page:''Study: 90% of Species Have a Recent OriginIn an evolutionary worldview, which assumes an ancient age for many of the species we have today, the results of this study are shocking...Evolution doesn’t expect the vast majority of our species to have arrived at the same time, nor does it expect species to have these clear genetic boundaries. Learn more:''And young earth creationism does not expect 200,000 years ago to be only 'recent' in Earth history, nor that many many species have gone extinct often in the distant past (and way before humans arrived) - and the BIBLE does NOT expect (as Ken Ham apparently does) that many of today's species appeared not in 'creation week' but after one quarter of Earth's 'existence' ie after a 'global flood' 1,500 years after divine creation 6,000 years ago (Genesis 1 reveals that God created what we call species according to the kinds or varieties in six days - and then rested ie all kinds of animal were created at the outset and what happened after the Genesis flood, according to the BIBLE, was simply multiplication and filling the planet).

His latest bit of topical rabble rousing:https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... y-someday/ 'Will Jurassic Park be Reality Someday?'"Many evolutionists will tell you that dinosaurs never died out—they evolved into birds. This absurd claim ignores the problem I mentioned above—there’s no known naturalistic process that adds the massive amount of information necessary to turn a dinosaur into a bird! These two types of creatures have massive differences (scales vs. feathers, different breathing systems, warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded, and so on) and huge amounts of unique information would be needed to turn one into the other, and there’s no known process that can do that!"Are birds more genetically complex (or 'information rich' whatever that means) than dinosaurs (does the ability to fly mean animals have more 'information')? How can Ken Ham possibly know such a thing? Does anyone know? And some dinosaurs possessed feathers. Also an internet search will show that Ham's claim about breathing systems is highly simplistic - and this has been the case for at least a decade. In addition, the AiG claim that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded is now highly controversial as a quick internet search will also reveal. Even the AiG website has previously acknowledged this: https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... d-blooded/"Will Jurassic Park become a reality? Probably not. DNA is highly complex, and even if some DNA has survived since the flood of Noah’s time, it’s likely far too degraded (even in just a few thousand years) to reconstruct a complete genome." But DNA HAS been recovered from material that is genuinely less than 6,000 years old, such as mummies.

What's ridiculous and absurd is the made-up facts, denial of evidence, and simplistic rabble rousing of the right wing fundamentalist and 'biblical' creationist Mr Ken Ham.

a_haworthroberts wrote:His latest bit of topical rabble rousing:https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... y-someday/ 'Will Jurassic Park be Reality Someday?'"Many evolutionists will tell you that dinosaurs never died out—they evolved into birds. This absurd claim ignores the problem I mentioned above—there’s no known naturalistic process that adds the massive amount of information necessary to turn a dinosaur into a bird! These two types of creatures have massive differences (scales vs. feathers, different breathing systems, warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded, and so on) and huge amounts of unique information would be needed to turn one into the other, and there’s no known process that can do that!"Are birds more genetically complex (or 'information rich' whatever that means) than dinosaurs (does the ability to fly mean animals have more 'information')? How can Ken Ham possibly know such a thing? Does anyone know? And some dinosaurs possessed feathers. Also an internet search will show that Ham's claim about breathing systems is highly simplistic - and this has been the case for at least a decade. In addition, the AiG claim that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded is now highly controversial as a quick internet search will also reveal. Even the AiG website has previously acknowledged this: https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... d-blooded/"Will Jurassic Park become a reality? Probably not. DNA is highly complex, and even if some DNA has survived since the flood of Noah’s time, it’s likely far too degraded (even in just a few thousand years) to reconstruct a complete genome." But DNA HAS been recovered from material that is genuinely less than 6,000 years old, such as mummies.

What's ridiculous and absurd is the made-up facts, denial of evidence, and simplistic rabble rousing of the right wing fundamentalist and 'biblical' creationist Mr Ken Ham.

As I have written here (in a comment that apparently awaits moderation):https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2018/06 ... tinctions/"Many evolutionists will tell you that dinosaurs never died out—they evolved into birds. This absurd claim ignores the problem I mentioned above—there’s no known naturalistic process that adds the massive amount of information necessary to turn a dinosaur into a bird! These two types of creatures have massive differences (scales vs. feathers, different breathing systems, warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded, and so on) and huge amounts of unique information would be needed to turn one into the other, and there’s no known process that can do that!”I wrote recently on the BCSE community forum in response: “Are birds more genetically complex (or ‘information rich’ whatever that means) than dinosaurs (does the ability to fly mean animals have more ‘information’)? How can Ken Ham possibly know such a thing? Does anyone know?” However I wondered afterwards whether I was picking up meaning from Ham’s tirade that was not intended. Maybe he was simply saying that change between separately created ‘kinds’ would always involve the addition of huge amounts of (genetic?) information because God saw to it that each ‘kind’ had ‘unique’ information? I would be interested to know how Ham would answer this if one if his supporters asked the question (he would probably ignore the question from a critic like me).

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/mudrocks-minutes/?utm_source=facebook-aig&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebook-aig''What do you know? Science again caught up with the Bible.''

The paper's abstract reported: "... Because mudstones were long thought to record low-energy conditions of offshore and deeper water environments, our results call for reevaluation of published interpretations of ancient mudstone successions and derived paleoceanographic conditions."

The CMI propaganda piece, which fails to link to the paper in question (the piece is flagged today on their Facebook page) stated: "recent research published in the prestigious journal Science has ... showed that mud deposits from rapidly flowing water" (as well as within tranquil waters). From that they claim "Once again, science catches up with the Bible". Well, the Bible might possibly imply that mud could form from rapidly flowing water during a 'global flood'. But there was no such event and science has NOT discovered it (despite having previously searched for supporting evidence and not finding such). There are other situations that involve rapidly flowing water I think even creationist zealots would agree. And given that mudstones make up the majority of the geological record, they are and have previously been a frequent occurrence.

The more thorough Walker (original) article shows that geological science continues to make progress. Which should threaten no-one.

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... bal-flood/"Elsewhere you can learn about the massive geological evidence for Noah’s flood and a young earth. Noah’s flood truly does wash away the idea of millions of years. Most of the earth’s sedimentary rocks and fossils were formed by the flood. But the vast majority of geologists (including many Christian geologists) are blind to this geological evidence. They are looking at it but can’t see it because they are wearing antibiblical philosophical “glasses”: their thinking is controlled by naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions that have controlled geology for the last 200 years ...".

The reality is that many scientists took off their religious glasses and considered the evidence on its merits and in the context of other evidence and what it clearly points to (and cannot point to).

No global flood to 'explain' the fossil record and geological record means that they are indeed explained by Deep Time (shallow time without a 'global flood' would doubtless fail to explain them adequately whether you deny real ancient catastrophes or pretend that they happened during 'biblical time').